A National Manufacturing Policy

Huffington Post (Leo Hindery, Jr., New America Foundation) - Successful economies and government policies that promote manufacturing growth run hand in hand, as China, Germany and the other major developed nations 'show' us every day. We've needed our own National Manufacturing Policy for at least two decades, based around five important principles:

First, it must be an all-of-government "state of mind", as one commentator described it, not a checklist.

Second, it must be as much an enforceable (and then enforced) regulatory framework as a manufacturing and jobs initiative. In other words, it must have both incentives and penalties.

Third, if it is to truly strengthen and balance the domestic economy and not serve special interests, then it must be carried out with complete transparency, non-discrimination and accountability.

Fourth, provision by provision, it must match or counter, as the case may be, the national manufacturing policies of our major trading partners.

Fifth, it must be willing to 'pick winners' in the U.S. economy and then support them, since all other developed nations and China do this every day. In Columbus, Ohio last week, President Obama again spoke of the need for private and targeted federal "investments in health care, education, broadband access and clean energy manufacturing", yet this principle of "picking winners" remains complete anathema to many members of his senior economic team, who in practice resist it every day. The question is simple: When will the President go beyond the rhetoric that he first used during the 2008 campaign and insist that his administration actually implement his pledges in this area?

National Infrastructure and Production Base Bank

Also in Columbus, the President again said that we "have to get serious about our infrastructure", for it remains "one of the keys to our future prosperity". The easy response to achieving this - and it's been the obvious response for a long time - is a fully authorized National Infrastructure and Production Base Bank that would enable the federal government to leverage the private capital markets to fund infrastructure and renewable/alternative energy investments and associated early-stage spending, to include working side-by-side with large domestic private-sector funders and current account surplus countries. This Bank, which would function completely removed from the nation's yearly budget, would help create millions of jobs, so how is it that the Obama administration can muster for it only vocal support, token proposed funding, and a limited charter?

Buy-Domestic

The U.S. still needs 'buy-domestic' federal government procurement requirements that mirror those of our major trading partners. At the same time, we need to enact forms of investment criteria for public resources not covered by these requirements, such as the use of domestically produced parts and components and the return of idle manufacturing capacity to productive service.

In sharp contrast to America, China right now uses two initiatives to ensure that the preponderance of central and virtually all provincial government purchases are of Chinese-origin: the first initiative is its National Indigenous Innovation Product Accreditation Program, promulgated last November (and modestly tempered in April), and the second is a pending (but already largely in place) requirement covering all renewable energy components. Concerning the latter, there is no ambiguity in any foreign supplier's mind about the meaning of China's demand that "energy supply should be where you can plant your foot on it" - this very strained translation from Chinese to English simply means 'Chinese-only or nothing', which is largely why China is already the world's largest manufacturer of solar panels and wind turbines - yep, those same turbines and panels that our Steelworkers and Machinists were hoping to build here in the U.S. - and is well on the path to soon also being the world's largest constructor of nuclear power plants.